[Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re: China and cookstoves]

Ronal W. Larson rongretlarson at comcast.net
Mon Dec 11 22:43:04 MST 2017


Hi all - see inserts below:


> On Dec 11, 2017, at 6:39 PM, Xavier Brandao <xav.brandao at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Ron,
>  
> You have gone pretty far in the past with fallacious reasoning, but this email takes the cake. We are now in uncharted territory.
>  
> Basically, this is your whole argumentation here:
> "I say they are valid because they are so widely used"
>  
> Ron, please re-read 7 times this sentence out loud just to measure how ridiculous it is.
>  
> I'll tell you other things people widely do:
> ·         People widely eat McDonalds
> ·         People widely believe in sorcery and spirits
> ·         People widely believe in different kind of gods
> ·         People widely believed the sun was rotating around the Earth
>  
> So many people can’t be wrong, ain't it?
	[RWL1:  Sorry.  I stand by my statement.  I meant in the context of arguing about whether the earth is flat or round.  More in closing.

>  
> How are people supposed to know how the WBT works?
	[RWL2:   I’m trying to hurry this, so I hope others will see if there are others better than found in my google search “water boiling test EPA stoves”

> How are they supposed to know that it is not reliable?
	[RWL3:  They’ll know when someone writes a paper on that topic in a peer-reviewed technical journal.   I know of no article (hope there is one) on why testing labs get different results than in the field.  But a big part has to be how good the testing labs are.  I doubt there are many cases when the testing lab gives the lower efficiency.  When I have watched lab testing, the dedicated tester NEVER left the front of the stove.  I’ll bet there are huge differences in the results between rocket and TLD type stoves - as there is almost nothing todo with the latter during a test. 

> Those who advocate(d) for the WBT while aware of the issues are responsible of this state of affairs.
	[RWL4:  The “who advocated” have overwhelmingly approved it - and are happy with the “state of affairs”.

>  
> I'll tell you what happened. A group of people invented the WBT. There was nothing at the time, some protocol had to be created and used. It's perfectly fine. Then more people started to use it. Without reviewing it. Testing reports started to pile. At some point, a few studies started to be published pointing at some serious flaws in the WBT. No one bothered about that, the WBT continued to be used, reports kept piling. Then more studies, on other issues, were published. Still no one was taking action. Sunk cost. The further you go, the more difficult it is to go back. The WBT has never been reviewed, except by the studies I was mentioning, and they all say there are serious problems with it.
	[RWL5:  I gave a reference a few months ago to Dr.  Bond that was about 100 years old using the WBT - with the “DE”.    Where do I go to find a corroboration of your version of this (sinister?) “group of people”?
>  
> « I respond because I find your position on the WBT to be devoid of value. »
> Why? Please explain.
	[RWL6:  I gave a full set of reasons, which are following as Ia-If and IIa-IId  (which labels I wish you had kept - to save me time)
>  
> « There are hundreds of articles using the WBT, with no issue of its validity. »
> Of course, they have never studied the WBT, never reviewed it!
	[RWL7(a):  You underestimate the group you are maligning.  Care to give any names for this group that has never studied the WBT?

> They have been told to use the WBT, so they tested, and they reported. The WBT was supposed to have had the state-of-the-art research and updates, why would they not use it?
	[RWL8(a):  Many dozens of experts have approved it over the last several years in the ISO process.   Where have you received your version of the voting?  We are talking here of I believe 25 countries.
>  
> « I know of no article in a peer-reviewed technical journal that gives a rationale for WBT or DE’s discontinuation.  The topic seems unique to this list »
> If something is not in a peer-reviewed technical journal, it doesn’t exist?
	[RWL9(b):  No it can exist - just not to be believed whole cloth.   Where is the evidence that the WBT is so bad?

> There is a serious rationale explaining the problems and why the WBT is broken. The peer-reviewed articles explain why it is not reliable.
	[RWL10(b):  It may exist, but you haven’t told where to find these article are on unreliability..
>  
> There is one little more step to take, and this step, researchers are not willing to take it.
	[RWL11(b):  I claim they have been taken - and we will see it when the WGII report is released.  Where do you get your information that researchers were so lax?

> Because it is not their job, or so they think. Scientists usually think their role is to state facts. From facts, conclusions and actions can be taken.
> This step is left to political actors, NGOs like Winrock, international organizations like GACC, implementers, or activists.
	[RWL12(b):  I continue to believe in my friends - AND because I have seen nothing in print to deny what they tell me.  I know a lot of scientists and none fit your description;  they do a lot more than “state facts”.

	NOTE:  My items c and d are missing.  They are (important-to-me) references to the ISO process - which you are saying is wrong.  You need these to understand my point (e), coming up.
>  
> « I say misinformed because both Professor Phillip Lloyd and Crispin showed a few months ago they did not know how to use the DE,  (Dr. Lloyd pulled an arbitrary number out of the air in his use of the equation). »
> How so? How should the DE be used then?
	[RWL13(e):  Just as it has been proposed for about a century in hundreds of papers:  e3=e1/(1-e2).   A VERY solid equation where every term is understood - including the negative sign.  
	I have not had time to work up a proof using a triangular plot - the three corners are A= e1 = stove energy;  B=e2 = charcoal energy;  C= inefficiency.  The sum of A+B+C anywhere in the interior of the triangle is unity.  The input energy can ONLY go these three ways.  I’m trying to get time to show where the DE shows up on this chart.  You can’t do this on normal x-y plots.  I hope someone will take this hint and beat me to it.
	The DE tells one how to move from the middle of the triangle to the edge where B = e2 = 0.
	I challenge you and anyone on the list to give any other formula that fairly gives credit to a co-product that can have value (in some cases) large than the cooking value.  In the case of a few percentage of char, it is the ONLY way to give a valid (larger) value for e1.
>  
> You talk a lot about the Denominator Equation, but to me, it is another matter. I don’t have an opinion about it, and I haven’t seen convincing facts from you who put into question what Tami and Crispin said.
	[RWL14e: I know you talk to Crispin who has argued strongly against the DE, but I doubt Dr. Bond is in agreement.  The “convincing facts” are in the triangle diagram - plus common sense and the agreement of the vast majority of those who have fought to keep the DE in place.  
	It does seem to me that you have a strong opinion on it.

> You can continue the conversation about the DE with them, but whether the DE is valid or not has no impact on all the other questions about the unreliability of the WBT.
> With or without the DE, the WBT is unreliable.
	[RWL15e:  I hope I don’t have to repeat many more times that it IS reliable - and you have not proven the converse.
>  
> « It is argued (by those especially who don’t have one) that stove testing laboratories (the main users of the WBT)  are unnecessary. »
> Who said that? Certainly not me nor the proponents of alternative testing. Laboratory testing is useful, and laboratories are useful. The WBT is not. CSI and HTP are laboratory protocols. You refused to read these protocols.
	[RWL16(f):  I’m glad to hear some of this from you.  Thanks.  I am referring to remarks by Crispin - and hope others can give an exact quote his in the last two weeks - on not needing a laboratory.
	I did NOT refuse to read the CSI and HTP; I have read them.   I do not claim to be an expert on them - but am pretty sure they heat water (I can’t keep all the acronyms straight).  Please give cites for each - and I’ll report back to this list on their use of heating water (e1) and measuring char (e2).  Inexplicably, there are some test procedures that seem to feel that charcoal is a made-up entity, that never needed to be measured.

	Note to others:  My point (g) is also missing - on the DE - where I said what I just repeated.
	
	The following are my four points on the Tier system.

>  
> « It is true that I argue for the WBT because char-making stoves turn out well using the DE.  Exceedingly well. »
> Not sure this in a paper would pass the peer-reviewing …
	[RWL17(a):  Me either.  I am here telling everyone where I am coming from - that Tiers are important to me (And thankfully they have NOT been dropped).  Without the Tier system, I am sure there would be much less progress.  (Thinking here of a message tonight from Kirk Harris.)
	If you were a major sponsor or stove buyer, would you prefer to know Tier levels or not?
	If you believe stoves have health impacts, would you pay attention to Tier levels?   How are you going to get repeatability on pollutant release without a WBT?

>  
> « It seems that those who argue against the WBT and DE are associated with stoves that don’t do as well. »
> Who then? Give names. Stop just making allegations.
	[RWL18(b):  I ask anyone who is a supporter of TLUDs whether they also oppose Tiers.  We all know that winners rarely critique the rules.  
	I chose not to embarrass anyone specific.  Do you really think I made a mistake there?
>  
> « I do so now for climate reasons (earlier for forest preservation, health, time-saving and money-making reasons).  My experience on this list is that a large majority of those who put down the WBT and the DE have zero concern about the climate impacts of inefficient and polluting stoves (and especially charcoal-using stoves).  Such beliefs lack appreciation of climate science; those persons must also have other motives - probably money related. »
> Please say who are those persons and what are those other motives? Do you have facts corroborating that?
	[RWL:(19c):  I’ll continue my practice of not naming such.  But they tend to talk about the beauty of coal-fired stoves.  
	The “ acts” come from what they say on this list and off-line conversations over about 10 years.  I suggest looking at who refers us to the “Watt’s Up With That” site  (the site given most credit in denier circles)


> « This list has finally had this week a TLUD story from Bangladesh that fully justifies use of the WBT and DE. »
> How? Can you explain?
	[RWL20 (d):  TLUD stoves have had only a very limited testing period where the char was placed in soil.  Dr.  Winter greatly surprise me last week when he told us how much the soil improvement spect of his stove has influenced consumer reaction.  Users were making money while cooking.
	If there were no Tier system giving (appropriate and accurate) value to char-making, then those stoves and users would not receive the credit they deserve (and the world needs) for carbon removal.
>  
> I’ll tell you something Ron, just to make things very clear:
> ·         I think the TLUD technology is by far the most exciting and promising stove technology right now, and that includes the char-making stoves
> ·         I think that anthropogenic climate change is real, and that it is one of the main threats for the humanity and other living species on this planet
	[RWL20:  Thanks for the clarification.  I had not been thinking of you in the WUWT camp
>  
> All that is beyond the point.
	[RWL21:  Nope -  it is my main point.
	
> We are now talking about the WBT, and there are scientific facts showing it is unreliable, and so far you haven’t been able to reply to my questions, and to prove these facts wrong.
	[RWL22:  If you provided any scientific facts above I failed to see them.  The main peer-reviewed paper claiming anything like this was saying there need to be more replications.  I specifically asked the main author whether he concerns about the WBT itself and he said no.  I asked for specifics and you have provided none.
>  
> Ron, you are supposed to be a scientist, to have a critical mind, to judge on facts only, and not on trends nor emotions.
	[RWL23:  Yup my point IIa  was supposed to tell everyone that this is a topic on which I get emotional.  That does not mean that I should or did or would want to ignore facts.  I think I have provide plenty above.  You have not.  I’m waiting.  
	I also believe that everyone has and should have emotions.  It wouldn’t surprise me that some of the best papers come from those with emotional attachments.
	I should also admit here that I get emotional when people like Nikhil give no credit to anything that EPA (mostly the EPA stove group can be called scientists).  He is not acting in a scientific manner at all (close to zero reference to peer-reviewed literature).  Same for his critique of GACC - totally unwarranted (and emotional and un-scientific).  

> Please let’s discuss facts.
> This sentence: « they are valid because they are so widely used » would have founding fathers and mothers of science throw themselves out the window, if they could.
	[RWL:  I go back to whether you would say the same if we were arguing about the earth’s sphericity?   You are arguing against a position which has major support in the stove improvement community.  I’m glad you are not a denier, but your argument against terms like “97%” are exactly those of deniers.  I repeat: show me a cogent article in print on why the WBT (and the DE) should not be accepted without reservation.

Ron

(re-read, but I have to stop now, given the hour.)

>  
> Best,
> 
> Xavier
>  
>  
> De : Ronal W. Larson [mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net <mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net>] 
> Envoyé : samedi 9 décembre 2017 06:22
> À : Discussion of biomass; Xavier Brandao
> Cc : Nikhil Desai; Crispin Pemberton-Pigott; Paul Anderson; Julien Winter
> Objet : Re: [Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re: China and cookstoves]
>  
> Xavier, list and ccs
>  
>             I guess (being the only individual named) I have to take up the challenge.  This is no fun.  I respond because I  find your position on the WBT to be devoid of value.  I apologize for trying to get this out on the day you sent it - and it is late.
>  
>             My evidence on the validity of the present WBT (especially including the “denominator equation”  - “DE” =  e1/(1-e2) is below in several parts.  If you respond, please refer to my numbered points, so we can best understand your reasoning. 
>  
> Part I- the WBT and DE
>                         a.  There are hundreds of articles using the WBT, with no issue of its validity.   Those that don’t use the DE also assume there is no char worth keeping track of. I don’t see how that can be a valid reason for not using a DE (and I think they all national stove documents use something like a WBT).
>                         b.  I know of no article in a peer-reviewed technical journal that gives a rationale for WBT or DE’s discontinuation.  The topic seems unique to this list
>                         c.  Working group 2 of the of the ongoing ISO TC-285 process recently voted overwhelmingly to retain the “DE”.  I am not aware of even unpublished critiques that make sense (and I ask for such to be part of your response).
>                         d.  Working group #1 had a very small group ( I’ve heard 7?) carry a virtual tie in saying that the DE should be removed.  Last night, WG#1’s leader,  Professor Tami Bond said I (nd others) could forward an explanatory private memo.  Others can forward more, but I think these sentences are important re the WBT and DE
>                         "There is a current draft in Working Group 2 regarding controlled laboratory testing (it has a formal name that I can’t remember). Its product is under revision after responding to comments from national standard bodies, and has not been published yet. Some of its features have received some of the same criticisms as were provided on the WBT that is in wide public use, yet other contents are different, as happens through discussion.”
>             Dr.  Bond is not here arguing for removal of the DE, but (unfortunately) there will be some confusion because of a very small number who are misinformed about the DE and voted in an irrational position that has benn rebutted by the vast majority of those involved in this ISO process.
>                         e.  I say misinformed because both Professor Phillip Lloyd and Crispin showed a few months ago they did not know how to use the DE,  (Dr. Lloyd pulled an arbitrary number out of the air in his use of the equation).
>                         f.  It is argued (by those especially who don’t have one) that stove testing laboratories (the main users of the WBT)  are unnecessary.  They mostly also seem to couple the WBT with un-needed procedures for CO and particulates (because they don’t believe widely reported health statistics).  I say they are valid because they are so widely used.  Often used to save governments money (unhealthy citizens are drains on national economies).  These rejections of the utility of pollutant measurements are almost identical to efforts to downplay climate impacts - caused by pollutants.
>                         g.  Something like the WBT is used virtually everywhere.  The only places where I believe the DE is not used is where they have not considered char-making to be possible or intelligent or some other unfathomable reason.  I challenge anyone who believes cha-making has the least bit of value to give some other means for bringing char-making into the valuation of a stove.
>  
> Part II.  Tiers       Turning to use of the DE as used in the tier structures (and I believe this is the main beef of those opposed to the WBT)
>                         a.  It is true that I argue for the WBT because char-making stoves turn out well using the DE.  Exceedingly well.  It seems that those who argue against the WBT and DE are associated with stoves that don’t do as well.
>                         b.  I do so now for climate reasons (earlier for forest preservation, health, time-saving and money-making reasons).  My experience on this list is that a large majority of those who put down the WBT and the DE have zero concern about the climate impacts of inefficient and polluting stoves (and especially charcoal-using stoves).  Such beliefs lack appreciation of climate science; those persons must also have other motives - probably money related.
>                         c.  I claim the Part I arguments justify its use and I am convinced the DE is totally valid (and can only be obtained through a WBT. So I ask all who respond to this to propose a better means of helping advance stove performance than the tier approach with its present use of the DE results.  If not tiers, what?
>                         d.  This list has finally had this week a TLUD story from Bangladesh that fully justifies use of the WBT and DE.  If the DE was dropped from the tier system (as some on this list have proposed), then the work of Julien and his collaborators would be much delayed.  To the disadvantage of those finding a new source of added income.
>  
>             It’s late.  I may have to add more - on Lima for instance.
>  
> Ron
>  
>  
>             
>> On Dec 8, 2017, at 2:54 PM, Xavier Brandao <xav.brandao at gmail.com <mailto:xav.brandao at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>  
>> Hello Frank,
>>  
>> Ahah, there is indeed a pattern, you might have noticed it is usually the following:
>> 1.  Someone, usually Ron or a member of the GACC, EPA, Aprovecho, D-Lab or Winrock, innocently drops « WBT is a great protocol to make stove improvements » or « you know, there are many supporters of the WBT », somewhere in a post, a handbook or a toolkit
>> 2.  Then, some of us howls in indignation, especially me. I start to rant and sound like a broken record. Then I hand over, once again, the pile of evidence, and ask some very simple straightforward questions.
>> 3.  Suddenly the one in 1. very kindly tells me, in a « ho-it-would-be-so-great-to-have-you-there » fashion, to:
>> a.  Join the ISO-TC 285 discussions
>> b.  Join a certain conference in the United States
>> c.  Or becomes suddenly completely mute
>> Often it is a., b. then c.
>> 4.  Then a few months pass by, and one beautiful day, we are back to step 1.
>>  
>> At this point it’s not a rabbit hole, it’s more like a rabbit loop, a rabbit loophole.
>> 
>> Best,
>>  
>> Xavier
>>  
>>  
>>  
>> -----Message d'origine-----
>> De : Stoves [mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto:stoves-bounces at lists.bioenergylists.org>] De la part de franke at cruzio.com <mailto:franke at cruzio.com>
>> Envoyé : jeudi 7 décembre 2017 21:56
>> À : ndesai at alum.mit.edu <mailto:ndesai at alum.mit.edu>
>> Cc : Crispin Pemberton-Pigott; Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>> Objet : Re: [Stoves] Going back to 3-Stone Fire [Was Re: China and cookstoves]
>>  
>>  
>> Dear Nikhil, Stovers,
>>  
>> Always great news when we start a new year talking WBT. That because it means we are not still down some rabbit hole someone has sent us to wallow around for a few years on some useless idea only to come to the surface and find us where we started (NOWHERE). But now starting at NOWHERE we must be careful we are not diverted down another rabbit hole. Make sure all project proposals involve the 6-Box system or parts of it. That involves both Field and Lab work. Because that is the only way we get control over the variables and move forward. A lot of work needs be done.
>>  
>> Regards
>> Frank Shields
>> Gabilan Laboratory
>>  
>>  <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>	
>> Garanti sans virus. www.avast.com <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Stoves mailing list
>> 
>> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
>> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>
>> 
>> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
>> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org>
>> 
>> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
>> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/ <http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20171211/47b45cbe/attachment.html>


More information about the Stoves mailing list